I'm attempting to calculate vertex normals for various game assets. The normals I calculate are used for "inflating" the model (to draw behind the real model producing a thick outline).
I currently compute the normal for each face and average all of them (several other questions on Stack Overflow suggest this approach). However, this doesn't work for sharp corners like this one (adjacent faces' normals marked in orange, the normal I'm trying to calculate is outlined in green).
The object looks like a small pedestal and we're looking at the front-left corner. There are three adjoining faces (the bottom face isn't visible; its normal points straight down).
Blender computes an excellent normal that lies squarely in the middle of the three faces' normals; it seems like it somehow calculates a normal that has minimum rotation to each of the three face normals. Blender's normal also doesn't change when the quads are triangulated differently.
Averaging the faces' normals gives me a different normal that points slightly upward in the Z-axis (-0.45, -0.89, +0.08). Inflating my model this way doesn't produce a good outline because the bottom face of the outline is shifted up and doesn't enclose the original model.
I attempted to look at the Blender source code but couldn't find what I was looking for. If anyone can point me to the algorithm in the Blender source, I'd accept that also.
Weight the surface normals by the angle of the faces where they join. It is a common practice in surface rendering (see discussion here: http://www.bytehazard.com/code/vertnorm.html), and will ensure that your bottom face is weighted stronger than the two slanted side faces. I don't know if Blender does it differently, but you should give it a try.
Related
I have a camera at a known fixed location and orientation.
I also have a plane at a known location whose z position changes.
I want to turn the image from the camera into a top down view of the plane.
I can do this without knowing any positions by using the 4 points of the plane for a homography matrix and warping the image but each time the plane moves in Z I have to repeat this process.
After searching around online most methods seem to center on finding features of the image (using SIFT or something like it) then computing a homography matrix.
With the problem so constrained I thought there may be a simple linear algebra based approach.
I made a mesh from a Digital Elevation Map that spanned 1x1 degree box of geography, but when I scale the mesh up to 11139m in blender I get these visible jagged shadows on the peaks of the mesh. I'd prefer to not scale everything down but I suppose I can, it just seems like a strange issue I want to better understand.
My goal is to use the landscape in a WebVR application, but when I put this mesh into an Aframe scene it also has this issue. Thanks for any tips!
Quick answer:
I think this may be caused by the clipping start/end values. Also called near/far clipping planes. Adjusting them may fix the issue but also limit the rendering distance.
Longer explanation:
Take a look at this:
It's a simple grayscale, but imagine it is scaled across your entire scene depth (Z depth buffer). The range of this buffer is set by the start/stop clipping (near/far) camera setting.
By default Blender has its start/stop (near/far) clipping set to 0.01 - 1000.
While A-Frame has it like 0.005 - 10000. You may find more information here: A-Frame camera #properties
That means the renderer has to somehow fit every single point in that range somewhere on the grayscale. That may cause overlapping or Z-fighting because it is simply lacking precision to distinguish the details. And that is mainly visible at edges/peaks because the polygons are connected there at acute angles and the program has to round up the Z-values. That causes overlapping visible as darker shadows (most likely the backside of the polygon behind).
You may also want to read more about Z-fighting because it is somewhat related.
Example
I am attempting to come up with a quick and efficient means of translating a 3d mesh into a projected AABB. In the end, I would like to accomplish something similar to figure 1 wherein only the area of the screen covered by the cube is located inside the bounding box highlighted in red. ((if it is at all possible, getting the area as small as possible, highlighted in blue, would increase efficiency down the road.))
Figure 1. https://i.imgur.com/pd0E20C.png
Currently, I have tried:
Calculating the point position on the screen using camera.unproject_position(). this failed largely due to my inability to wrap my head around the pixel positions trending towards infinity. I understand it has something to do with Tan, but frankly, it is too late for my brain to function anymore.
Getting the area of collision between the view frustum and the AABB of the mesh instance. This method seems convoluted, and to get it in a usable format I would need to project the result into 2d coordinates again.
Using the MeshInstance VisualInstance to create a texture wherein a pixel is white if it contains the mesh instance, and black otherwise. Visual instances in general just baffle me, and I did not think it would be efficient to have another viewport just to output this texture.
What I am looking for:
An output that can be passed to a shader informing where to complete certain calculations. Right now this is set up to use a bounding box, but it could easily be rewritten to also use a texture. It also could be rewritten to use polygons, but I am trying to keep calculations to a minimum in the shader.
Certain solutions I have tried before have worked, slightly, but this must be robust. The camera interfacing with the 3d object will be able to move completely around and through it, meaning at times the view will be completely surrounded by the 3d model with points both in front, and behind.
Thank you for any help you can provide.
I will try my best to update this post with information if needed.
I want to display mesh models in OpenGL ES 2.0, where it clearly shows the actual mesh, so I don't want smooth shading across each primitive/triangle. The only two options I can think about are
Each triangle has its own set of normals, all perpendicular to the triangles surface (but then I guess I can't share vertices among the triangles with this option)
Indicate triangle/primitive edges using black lines and stick to the normal way with shared vertices and one normal for each vertex
Does it have to be like this? Why can't I simply read in primitives and don't specify any normals and somehow let OpenGL ES 2.0 make a flat shade on each face?
Similar question Similar Stackoverflow question, but no suggestion to solution
Because in order to have shading on your mesh (any, smooth or flat), you need a lighting model, and OpenGL ES can't guess it. There is no fixed pipeline in GL ES 2 so you can't use any built-in function that will do the job for you (using a built-in lighting model).
In flat shading, the whole triangle will be drawn with the same color, computed from the angle between its normal and the light source (Yes, you also need a light source, which could simply be the origin of the perspective view). This is why you need at least one normal per triangle.
Then, a GPU works in a very parallelized way, processing several vertices (and then fragments) at the same time. To be efficient, it can't share data among vertices. This is why you need to replicate normals for each vertex.
Also, your mesh can't share vertices among triangles anymore as you said, because they share only the vertex position, not the vertex normal. So you need to put 3 * NbTriangles vertices in you buffer, each one having one position and one normal. You can't either have the benefit of using triangle strips/fans, because none of your faces will have a common vertex with another one (because, again, different normals).
I'm creating heightmaps using Fractal Brownian Motion. I'm then coloring it based on the heights and mapping it to a sphere. My problem is that the heightmap doesn't wrap seamlessly. I've used the Diamond Square algorithm and it's pretty easy to make things seamless using it, but I can't seem to figure out how to do it with fBm and I seem to be having trouble finding an explanation for it on the web.
To clarify, by "seamless", I mean that when I map it to a sphere, it creates a seamless map on the sphere.
Instead of calculating the heightmap per pixel on the heightmap, calculate the heightmap in 3D space based on each point on the sphere and then map that to an image pixel. You're going to have trouble wrapping a 2D, rectangular heightmap like that onto a sphere without getting ugly results at the poles unless you start your calculations from the sphere.
fBM generalizes to 3 dimensions, so given a point on the sphere you can get the height at that point, and then you can do the math to map that value to where it should be stored in the heightmap image.
Or you could use one of the traditional map projections. A cylindrical projection (x, y)->(x, sin y) would give you a seam of just one meridian, which you could rotate to the back. Or you could "antialias" the edge by one or another means.
With a stereographic projection (x,y,z)->(x/(z+1),y/(z+1)), there's only one sour point (the projection point itself).